Patna High Court

Ripu DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of her antecedents.

Summary

Ripu Devi, the owner of a motorcycle from which 17.28 litres of liquor was seized, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. She argued that she had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware that the vehicle would be misused by others. The State opposed the bail. The court, considering her clean antecedent and lack of direct involvement, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and verification of her criminal record by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be withdrawn; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The decision was based on the principles of Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and the facts presented.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle and lack of direct possession of liquor justify granting bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
liquor seizure
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
Section 30(a)
Section 482(2)

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26484 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2025 Thana- Sinha District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Ripu Devi W/O Ashok Kumar Pandey Resident of Village- Kishunpur, P.S.
                 Bihta, District- Patna

                                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Ms. Pronoti Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   22-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and

                   allegation is of recovery of 17.28 litres of liquor from a

                   motorcycle. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested

                   from the spot as such nothing was recovered from her conscious

                   possession and she came to be implicated based on the fact that

                   she is owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no

                   prudent person would use her own vehicle for committing an

                   occurrence and thus would create evidence against herself and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26484 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
                                            2/3




          hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that the

          petitioner was completely unaware that Vishal would misuse his

          vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended

          from the spot along with Jitendra. It is next submitted that it is

          not the case of prosecution that they saw a woman fleeing from

          the place of occurrence.

                       4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of her arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

          learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in

          connection with Sinha P.S. Case No.99/2025, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter

          shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one

          case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had

          concealed her antecedent before this court, as such, the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26484 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if

                       on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean

                       antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                       shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…